Why did the disagreement among delegates over the election of representatives result in the Connecticut Compromise? Can you think of a different solution to the problem of representation?
The disagreement among delegates over the election of representatives during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 occurred primarily between large and small states. Large states, such as Virginia, wanted congressional representation to be based on population, while small states, like New Jersey, argued for equal representation for all states regardless of size. This disagreement threatened to derail the entire constitutional process.
To resolve this impasse, the Connecticut Compromise, also known as the Great Compromise, was proposed by Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut. The compromise established a bicameral legislature, consisting of two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate.
In the House of Representatives, representation would be based on population, accommodating the concerns of large states. This method ensured that states with greater populations had a proportionate number of representatives, reflecting their size and influence.
To assuage the concerns of small states, the Senate would give equal representation to all states. Each state, regardless of size or population, would be allocated two senators. This provision aimed to prevent the domination of smaller states by the larger ones.
The Connecticut Compromise successfully balanced the interests of both large and small states by offering a compromise that incorporated elements of both preference for representation based on population and equal representation for all states.
As for a different solution to the problem of representation, one alternative could have been to adopt a purely proportional system, where the number of representatives for each state is directly determined by its population. This approach would have favored larger and more populous states, possibly at the expense of smaller ones.
Alternatively, a system of regional representation could have been considered, where representatives are elected based on geographic regions or districts rather than the whole state. This would have allowed for diverse representation within each state, reflecting the specific needs and interests of different areas.
However, such alternatives might have perpetuated the concerns and division among large and small states and could have hindered the formation of a strong central government. Ultimately, the Connecticut Compromise struck a delicate balance that addressed the concerns of both factions and played a crucial role in the successful drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution.